Exactly the 2A supporter's point. If the Supreme Court has declared that the police are not obligated to protect you, then why take away the people's right to bear arms?

I'll tell you why, it's to control the populace as to make them 100% dependent on the government, that's why.

Click to expand...

Nothing's been taken, yet. And, frankly, tighter, more thorough background checks ARE a good thing so long as the criteria do not prevent sane, law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to purchase a firearm of their choosing for defensive purposes -- be it defense against intruders, invaders, or a government military that is turned on its own populace.

And therein lies the key to why AR-15's, so-called "assault weapons", etc. should continue to be produced and sold. The colonies had been denied the right to legally possess arms by their British masters in the hope of staving off armed revolution -- and our founding fathers codified the second amendment to make sure it would never happen, again. At the time the militia had the same small arms (muskets and in very wealthy cases even cannon) available to them as the British army. So, too, it should remain, today.

Nothing's been taken, yet. And, frankly, tighter, more thorough background checks ARE a good thing so long as the criteria do not prevent sane, law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to purchase a firearm of their choosing for defensive purposes -- be it defense against intruders, invaders, or a government military that is turned on its own populace.

And therein lies the key to why AR-15's, so-called "assault weapons", etc. should continue to be produced and sold. The colonies had been denied the right to legally possess arms by their British masters in the hope of staving off armed revolution -- and our founding fathers codified the second amendment to make sure it would never happen, again. At the time the militia had the same small arms (muskets and in very wealthy cases even cannon) available to them as the British army. So, too, it should remain, today.

Click to expand...

IMO, more thorough background checks will do almost nothing to prevent crime where a firearm is used. Heck NICS checks are pretty much a dog and pony show feel good act for the antis.

I still cannot believe that convicted felons go down to Cabela's, Bass Pro, etc. to buy a firearm to commit a crime?

I remember reading that Jared Loughner PASSED the NICS check while I used to get a delay because someone with a similar name had a restraining order against them. The NICS stuff is so absurd it's a joke.

What should be done IMO is that for a small fee ($5 annually) you apply for a permit to buy firearms. This would involve a more than cursory check. Then the person can use their permit to buy as many firearms as he/she wishes (no registration). When you buy your firearm, you simply present your permit to buy (photo ID) and then pay your money. I don't like it, but it is WAYY BETTER than NICS. Imagine no more lines. If a person was deemed mentally ill or convicted of a felony, their permit card would be revoked. Also face to face transactions would still be no NICS needed.

I am a CCW holder, why can't all 50 states and the feds say if you have a CCW, then you don't need NICS?

I would prefer it be like the old days when I was a kid I bought my first rifle from Service Merchandise and went home, no stupid background checks.

IMO, more thorough background checks will do almost nothing to prevent crime where a firearm is used. Heck NICS checks are pretty much a dog and pony show feel good act for the antis.

Click to expand...

NICS being a dog & pony show is part of the problem. Improved background checks will definitely help in cases like the Aurora shooting if they are able to encompass psychological/psychiatric/mental defective type issues. Consider the Aurora shooting ... where the shooter legally purchased a firearm but recently had psych issues.

That's a perfect example of how improved background checks could help. But there's a catch -- people (democrats, republicans, and pretty much everyone) have to agree to allow background checks to delve into medical histories -- something your 4th Amendment right currently protects against. (Right now HIPPA legislation pretty much requires a warrant for any kind of medical disclosure -- including psych issues -- unless there's adequate probable cause.)

While progressives are quick to try to obliterate rights they do not exercise, they tend to be very stodgy about giving up rights they care about ... and their own privacy is one such thing. So, I think meaningful background check improvements (in terms of what is checked ... and what's available to be checked) are a lost cause. However, the idea/thinking is correct, as checking against psych issues is really the only way to keep people who are messed up in the head from buying firearms from FFL holders.

The other improvement that needs to be made (and can/should be made) is coverage of background checks. The gun show loophole is real in some states -- and should be closed. NC, where I live, is not a state that needs it because this state requires a 'permit to purchase' a firearm ... even at gun shows and for private transactions, per state law ... and such a permit is issued from a Sheriff's office only after a $5.00 (i.e. very modest) fee is paid to help cover the cost of a background check. Valid CCW holders have this requirement waived, here, as the background check done on them for the CCW is considered a compensating control ... so they can buy without the hassle of a "permit to purchase". (Also note that per the 10th Amendment, NC is well within its rights, as a sovereign state, to implement such a measure.)

If instacheck were required at gun shows and for all private transactions then the "permit to purchase" hassles, here, would be done away with for those without CCW's ... and the gun show loophole would close ... in addition to the private transaction loophole AND the auction loophole (a la estate auctions, and the like).

You may consider background checks stupid. Heck, I do, too. But in today's world where family values have largely broken down, where people depend on the state for aid rather than their own families or their churches, and where gangs and drugs are rampant compared to the 40's and 50's ... we must acknowledge that it's a different world -- one where respect for others and/or their property just isn't what it once was.

I'm from Illinois and we can't carry weapons at all. The great state of Chicago has the strictest gun control laws and the second highest murder rate out of any city in the country. God bless the Chicago political machine (sarcastically of course).

I think we need to adopt a few Chinese laws. Their death penalty is enforced within two weeks. They bind you, shoot you in the back of the head, then charge your family for the bullet. A few laws like this will stop a lot of criminal activity.

NICS being a dog & pony show is part of the problem. Improved background checks will definitely help in cases like the Aurora shooting if they are able to encompass psychological/psychiatric/mental defective type issues. Consider the Aurora shooting ... where the shooter legally purchased a firearm but recently had psych issues.

That's a perfect example of how improved background checks could help. But there's a catch -- people (democrats, republicans, and pretty much everyone) have to agree to allow background checks to delve into medical histories -- something your 4th Amendment right currently protects against. (Right now HIPPA legislation pretty much requires a warrant for any kind of medical disclosure -- including psych issues -- unless there's adequate probable cause.)

While progressives are quick to try to obliterate rights they do not exercise, they tend to be very stodgy about giving up rights they care about ... and their own privacy is one such thing. So, I think meaningful background check improvements (in terms of what is checked ... and what's available to be checked) are a lost cause. However, the idea/thinking is correct, as checking against psych issues is really the only way to keep people who are messed up in the head from buying firearms from FFL holders.

The other improvement that needs to be made (and can/should be made) is coverage of background checks. The gun show loophole is real in some states -- and should be closed. NC, where I live, is not a state that needs it because this state requires a 'permit to purchase' a firearm ... even at gun shows and for private transactions, per state law ... and such a permit is issued from a Sheriff's office only after a $5.00 (i.e. very modest) fee is paid to help cover the cost of a background check. Valid CCW holders have this requirement waived, here, as the background check done on them for the CCW is considered a compensating control ... so they can buy without the hassle of a "permit to purchase". (Also note that per the 10th Amendment, NC is well within its rights, as a sovereign state, to implement such a measure.)

If instacheck were required at gun shows and for all private transactions then the "permit to purchase" hassles, here, would be done away with for those without CCW's ... and the gun show loophole would close ... in addition to the private transaction loophole AND the auction loophole (a la estate auctions, and the like).

You may consider background checks stupid. Heck, I do, too. But in today's world where family values have largely broken down, where people depend on the state for aid rather than their own families or their churches, and where gangs and drugs are rampant compared to the 40's and 50's ... we must acknowledge that it's a different world -- one where respect for others and/or their property just isn't what it once was.

Click to expand...

Please, do not use the term "gun show loophole", to me that's what antis and people that know virtually zero about guns use. I FIRMLY believe that face to face transactions are perfectly fine.

In your last paragraph you are basically wanting to legislate control over the people. Just because politicians make laws does not mean that people are all the sudden going to respect other people. It all starts in the home, and frankly I agree that the family values of the 50s, 60s, and 70s are just not what they used to be, so making more restrictive laws is not going to fix that problem. Less redundant laws is what this country needs and for the parents of this great nation to be more involved in their children's upbringing.

As of right now there is not anything that someone can do with a gun in a negative manner that there are not a LARGE number of laws that lands the person in jail, do we need to further complicate the justice system with MORE?

They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when virtually every police officer know VERY little about the laws they enforce, something is wrong.